This page was last updated on December 1, 2011.
Do They Really Want ‘Specific Demands’ from the Occupiers?; Carl Davidson; Progressive Democrats of America – PA 4th CD Chapter; November 29, 2011.
You can learn more about BCR’s leftster management here.
“I’m getting fed up with pompous pundits lecturing the ‘Occupy!’ movement for not having a set of specific demands.”
[RWC] Unless I were hiding something and didn’t want people to know my goals and how I plan to achieve them, why wouldn’t I be happy to explain them to the public as one of my first acts? This sounds a lot like then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) when she said, “But we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
I have to admit this is the first time I heard someone claim a movement didn’t need a set of goals to succeed.
“A case in point: New York Time financial columnist Joe Nocera quoted at length in a story by Phoebe Mitchell in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on Nov 29. He was speaking at the Amherst Political Union, a debate club at UMass Amherst.”
[RWC] Fact check: The quotes of Mr. Nocera did not come from him “speaking at the Amherst Political Union.” According to the story cited (“New York Times financial writer Joe Nocera critiques Occupy movement”) by Mr. Davidson, Mr. Nocera’s comments came from “an interview last week with the Gazette.” The event to which Mr. Davidson referred took place the day after the story was published.
“Nocera starts off with the now usual tipping of the hat to the protestors:”
[RWC] “[T]he now usual tipping of the hat to the protestors?” By whom?
“‘Nocera believes the anger caused by income inequality, a divisive issue across the country in this prolonged economic downturn, is the fuel for both popular uprisings. ‘If we lived in a country that had a growing economy and where the middle class felt that they could make a good living and had a chance for advancement and a decent life, there would be no tea party or Occupy Wall Street,’ he said.’”
[RWC] The same thing is driving both the Tea Party and OWS, from the guy who earlier this year wrote a column entitled “Tea Party’s War on America?” So the OWS movement is for things like limited government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, et cetera? I guess that’s what OWS protestors meant with their signs saying “Abolish Capitalism,” “Smash Capitalism,” “Fight for Socialism,” and so on. I’ll look for signs like those at the next local Tea Party rally. You know, the evil guys who rally peacefully and clean up after themselves.
As for “income inequality, a divisive issue across the country” is fuel for the Tea Party, that’s news to me. I attended two Tea Party rallies and heard/saw no mention of “income inequality.” The same is true for coverage of rallies I saw on TV and in the print media. Since May 2010 I received more than 270 e-mail notes from Tea Party Patriots and none mentioned “income inequality.”
In truth, “income inequality” is another made-up problem intended to divide us. Income inequality is a natural byproduct of a free society because we all have different capabilities, desires, goals, talents, and so on. Even if we all had the same capabilities, desires, goals, talents, and so on, we would still have “income inequality” because different jobs have different economic values relative to other jobs. The only way to achieve “income equality” is via wage controls of some kind which means employers and employees don’t have the freedom to agree on mutually-acceptable compensation. You may recall World War II wage controls are at the root of our current healthcare price problem. In any case, there are so few really high-end earners relative to the overall workforce, you could redistribute all their earnings to the rest of us and it would be a drop in the bucket. The bogus “income inequality” issue is just another tactic to play on envy that would bring people down, not lift people up.
“But we don’t live in such times, and the more interesting story is that OWS and its trade union allies are displacing the Tea Party, and energizing the progressive grassroots. Nocera, however, makes OWS the target.”
[RWC] “OWS and its trade union allies?” Aren’t we constantly told OWS is a grassroots movement? I guess we’re supposed to “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
As for “displacing the Tea Party,” I encourage lefties to hold this belief. “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. … Move along.”
“‘He believes that for the Occupy Movement to be successful, it must frame clear demands that outline a plan for creating jobs and refashioning Wall Street to benefit the entire country and not just a select few wealthy investors. Without a solid plan for moving forward, he said, the Occupy protestors will be continued to be viewed by Wall Street supporters as little more than ‘a gnat that needs to be flicked from its shoulder blades.’
“A ‘gnat’ indeed. In due time, a progressive majority may well come to view our dubious ‘Masters of the Universe’ on Wall St as bothersome gnats to be flicked away.”
[RWC] This may be mean, but I hope one day progressives get to live under – and I mean under – a government they seem to want for the rest of us, just not in the United States.
“But to get to the main point, Nocero knows perfectly well that there is any number of short, sweet and to the point sets of demands aimed at Wall Street finance capital and the Congress it works to keep under its thumb. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO has been hammering away at his six-point jobs program—one point of which is a financial transaction tax of Wall Street as a source of massive new revenues to fund the other five.”
[RWC] So what if others have “any number of short, sweet and to the point sets of demands?” I thought the OWS gangs were something fresh and new without any ties to the establishment.
About 27 minutes into a September 2010 interview with The Nation, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages. I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people. That’s why I got into the labor movement.” No one will mistake Mr. Trumka for Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and AFL president for 38 years until his death.
Here is Mr. Trumka’s “six-point jobs program.” What Mr. Trumka calls “a Financial Speculation Tax,” Mr. Davidson calls “a financial transaction tax.” As for “a source of massive new revenues,” not exactly. Please read my critique of “Banksters: You Made the Mess? Pay Up!” to learn more.
“The United Steel Worker’s [sic] Leo Gerard has been tireless for years working for a new clean energy and green manufacturing industrial policy that could create millions of new jobs and get us out of the crisis in a progressive way.”
[RWC] As a reminder, USW CEO Leo Gerard is a foreign national. If the “clean energy and green manufacturing” industries were such a good idea, wouldn’t we capitalist-pig oppressors be all over it like white on rice? Heck, if Mr. Gerard is so gung-ho on it, why doesn’t he divert USW spending from lobbying and political activities (See below.) to get into the “clean energy and green manufacturing” business? Though I can’t vouch for its content, you may want to read a Universidad Rey Juan Carlos study about Spain’s experience with a “green manufacturing industrial policy.”
When did “a progressive way” ever get us out of a crisis? Anyone who asks “Oh yeah, what about FDR and the Great Depression?” should consider the following quote: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot.” - Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary during the Great Depression, testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee in May 1939. At the time World War II began, FDR had been in office for nine years and the U.S. was still solidly in the Depression. As a reminder, the unemployment rate was still a very high 14.6% in 1940 (down from 24.9% in 1933) and didn’t get below 10% until 1941 (9.9%). WWII and post-war foreign reconstruction demand ended the Depression, not FDR. In fact, it’s clear some of FDR’s progressive policies actually held back recovery.
Indeed, though leftsters pitch a fit whenever it’s mentioned, “a progressive way” policy is at the bottom of our current economic mess.
“So what happens when these demands are put forward? With our Wall Street lobbyists working behind the scene, the best politicians money can buy declare them ‘off the table.’ Nocera and others of like mind in punditocracy put the cart before the horse. OWS arose as a result of a long train of abuses, year after year of sensible, rational, progressive demands and programs swept off of Congress’s agenda like so many bread crumbs from a dining table. Not even brought to a vote. OWS and a lot of other people are fed up with being dismissed.”
[RWC] When he writes of “Wall Street lobbyists” and “the best politicians money can buy,” Mr. Davidson apparently wants us to forget the primary businesses of the USW and the AFL-CIO are advocacy for leftist politicians and lobbying for leftist policies/programs. According to their Department of Labor LM-2 forms, USW management spent over $6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying” and AFL-CIO management spent over $29.6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying.” This is consistent with the Trumka quote above. Representing employees is simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities.
Once again, the effect of the “put[ting] the cart before the horse” comment sounds a lot like the Nancy Pelosi quote I cited at the beginning of this critique. Apparently, we are to learn the OWS goals and how OWS plans to achieve them only after we cede power to OWS. Yeah, that doesn’t sound creepy at all.
What are those “sensible, rational, progressive demands and programs” presented “year after year?”
“The pundits should watch what they wish for. The demands and packages of structural reforms will be back, much sharper and clearer, and with the ante upped by hundreds of thousands in the streets, as well as millions turning out for the polls. In fact, the solutions have always been there for anyone with ears to hear. We’ll see if our voices are loud enough to crack the ceiling at the top, and let some light shine through.”
[RWC] “The pundits should watch what they wish for?” Again, unless you’re hiding something and don’t want people to know your goals and how you plan to achieve them, why wouldn’t you be happy to explain them to the public as one of your first acts?
“In fact, the solutions have always been there for anyone with ears to hear.” This is actually true, but leftsters apparently have no “ears to hear” and/or have a different agenda. As a result, leftsters pursue policies/programs proven over the centuries to fail but which place power into their hands instead of into the hands of the people as individuals.
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.